Climate Deal Reached in Paris: Net Zero Carbon Emissions by End of Century

Breaking news from the COP 21 climate conference in Paris is that a deal has been reached to reduce climate change.

According to the BBC, these are some key measures in the final draft of the agreement:

• To peak greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and achieve a balance between sources and sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century
• To keep global temperature increase “well below” 2C (3.6F) and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C
• To review progress every five years
• $100 billion a year in climate finance for developing countries by 2020, with a commitment to further finance in the future.

Gizmodo reports that a long term part of the agreement is that a goal of net zero carbon emissions will be met by the end of this century.

This deal is apparently partly legally binding and partly voluntary (I don’t have the details on that yet), but this agreement should be a big boost for emerging carbon-free energy technologies like LENR as governments and businesses will now have to start looking for replacements for fossil fuels in the energy sector.

  • http://www.russgeorge.net/ russ george

    If you are wanting to understand the new Paris Accord I’ve written a post on my Atom-Ecology Blog.. John Kerry has just announced that the US gov’t expects the cost of the accord to run over $50 trillion! I am overjoyed that the accord statesas vital to the world success in solving the CO2 crisis is working with Mother Nature to grow more plants both on land and in the oceans. It seems 195 nations now endorse restoration of ocean pastures. Or as I have said for almost 2 decades ‘restore the trees and seas.’
    http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2015/12/14/cold-fusion-and-plankton-to-rescue-paris-accord/

  • snowvoardphil

    Why would it be so? (net zero in a century)

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I’m assuming that these carbon exchanges will be run by the same old cast of characters.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGk5ioEXlIM

  • Alan DeAngelis

    To me it looks like an averaging of the sunspots. This link might help.
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

  • http://bobmapp.com.uk twobob

    No sitting in front of a log fire then.
    Or rolling on the carpet .Shame!

  • Alan DeAngelis

    They must really love us. With all that money they’ll collect, they may even plant a tree or two. http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/01/21/uk-energy-and-climate-change-secretary-on-governments-current-lenr-stance/#comment-1814062598

    • Omega Z

      Besides planting a few trees, that $100 billion a year will also be used to build Fossil fuel power plants. This can be found in U.N. documents if one wants to dig through the papers. They did add a caveat that they need to have scrubbers. You know. The acid rain thingy. But CO2 capture is not required. That’s to expensive for 3rd world & developing countries. They would cut into the graft for the politicians.

  • Axil Axil

    GW causes demographic disruption as populations must migrate en masse from either newly developing deserts, new swamps, or newly forming shallow seas to new lands owned by somebody else. In the worst case, all the populations living in the great coastal cities of the world will be pushed inland a few hundred kilometers to live on lands that are owned by other people.

    Nations could decide to either let the new migrants into their country or just kill them off. When your time comes to move, will you be accepted with a full and loving heart into a new land and allowed to begin a new life or be killed off through starvation or bullets.

    Will your country having been decimated by new dust bowls and desertification need new Lebensraum where food can be once again be produced in abundance? How will this new a lush Lebensraum be acquired?

  • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

    This agreement is a political hoax. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have promised to increase ethanol mandates, and we know that biofuel farming increases greenhouse gas emissions more than using ordinary gasoline, and of course, helps starve the world. That is the quality of mind that will likely lead this USA in the coming years. Our politicians will do all kinds of damage to the world, waste money, fight useless wars that burn up fossil fuels by the ship convoy load, but one thing they will not do is reduce greenhouse gas emissions other than by putting the world deeper into economic recession. The more companies go bankrupt and the more people become poor and starved, the fewer greenhouse gas emissions. In that sense, societal collapse and mass global poverty are “green.”

    • georgehants

      Christopher, what you point out is very True, unfortunately people seem psychological unable to except the obvious, without capitalism then recession is impossible.
      As manpower and production are the only things in society that matter then there would be no boom bust, no people without, unless major natural catastrophes where to strike for which we hopefully would be clever enough to prepare for, Globally.
      As with Cold Fusion effects on job losses, it would become an obvious advantage to lose jobs.
      Only capitalism brainwashes people into believing that working unnecessarily has some purpose.
      My point is exactly the same as saying Cold Fusion should be Researched for the benefit of humanity, only capitalism has an agenda to stop that happening.
      Why does a major percentage of society, as with Cold Fusion, Orbo, capitalism etc. follow directions that only take a very limited intellect to realise are irrational?

      • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

        I am pro capitalism, meaning pro free market. Our problem is we have too much government that is doing way too many things it should not do, and badly. Our government should be doing the basic essential things, like protecting our borders from invasion and enforcing laws already on the books, but it is refusing to do the essential while wasting assets on the nonessential. We have no business protecting the borders of other countries. We do not have free choice in the energy market because we have worthless renewable schemes forced upon us that don’t work and drive up the cost of living. I want more free market capitalism and less crony capitalism, which is government in conspiracy with big business, like Big Biofuel, to rip off consumers in exchange for political support. Mandates and subsidies should be outlawed across the board. I want a hands-off government where free consumer choice rules, not socialism and not crony capitalism. Free consumer choice lowers costs and gives everyone an effective raise in their standard of living.

    • Agaricus

      Another highly qualified dissenter speaks out about groupthink and intmidation: Dr. Judith Curry, Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at theGeorgia Institute of Technology testifies before last week’s US Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of the Human Impact on Earth’s Climate.”

      https://youtu.be/GujLcfdovE8

      Policy advocacy, combined with understating the uncertainties, risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty and objectivity – without which scientists become regarded as merely another lobbyist group.

      • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

        Terrific video. Love the woman!

  • Gerard McEk

    Because they (of the CPO21) were not able to reach an agreement, Ban Ki-moon telephoned with Rossi and asked if he could agree with the ageement, when looking to the 1 MW plant test to limit the CO2 to 1.5%. Rossi said that it could be positive or negative. The Ban Ki-moon offered 100 billion for building a fully automated Ecat plant and then Rossi finally agreed. A few minutes later the agreement was signed…… 😉

    • Axil Axil

      You should has stated that post with…I have a dream…

  • Alan DeAngelis
    • mcloki

      And without explanation or analysis it means nothing.

      • Alan DeAngelis
      • Roland

        Not to mention the accuracy of sunspot measurements in 1620, or that arriving solar energy has declined over the same 30 year period that average surface temperatures have increased dramatically, or the ice core evidence that there is a direct long term correlation between CO2 ppm and climate, or that the ice core records show that the shift between 180 ppm, ice age lows, and 280 ppm, the previous highs over the last 400,000 years, driven by natural causes takes 10-30,000 years, or that we’ve gone from 280 ppm to 400 ppm in a mere 180 years.

        Alan and a few other posters aren’t interested in facts or analysis on this particular topic so don’t hold your breath awaiting a rational explanation of their thesis.

  • Mats002

    Good for our children that their parents show some mature responsibility for their future lifes.